- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:07:25 -0500
- To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
On Nov 6, 2004, at 4:12 AM, Martin Gudgin wrote: >>> Without going >>> further on that (which I could but we've got an overload of messages >>> already), my point was that people ended up always looking into the >>> message to determine the "action" under the optional soap 1.1 action >>> header. A mandatory WSA:Action breaks that cycle and an optional >>> Action >>> perpetuates it. >>> >> I'm OK with a particular service requiring the presence of an action. >> I'm not OK with requiring every message to carry one even when the >> service they are destined for doesn't use it. This is where >> we ended up >> in the XMLP WG and I think its a good compromise position. > > If a service doesn't require wsa:Action, then perhaps it shouldn't be > usign WS-Addressing? > All or nothing eh. Why force folks to make such a stark choice over something that in some cases carries no useful information. Marc. --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 17:08:15 UTC